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

RE: [glosalist] Stephan, Xavier

Expand Messages
  • Ian Niles
    A couple of comments. I think we can all agree that, all thing being equal, it is preferable for a derivation scheme for words of an IAL to be based on
    Message 1 of 6 , Apr 2 9:31 AM
      A couple of comments. I think we can all agree that, all thing being equal, it is preferable for a derivation scheme for words of an IAL to be based on ancient Greek/Latin roots (a la LsF), rather than on a set of English words. For one thing, if we suppose that all speakers of a given IAL are fluent in English, then there is of course no point to an IAL. For another thing, the words of many modern languages are often systematically derived from ancient Greek/Latin, so if you know how words in your language are derived from ancient Greek/Latin and there is a derivation rule from the classical roots to the IAL, you can generate a good body of vocabulary for the IAL automatically, regardless of which modern European language you start from. Incidentally, this is one feature I really like about Occidental/Interlingue. That being said, any convincing proposal to revise a language, whether a natural language or an IAL, does not come in the form of an edict. It comes in the form of a signficant body of content that is expressed using the revised version of the language. This can be seen as the experimental justification for the proposal, and the community (or a community) can judge whether or not it's an improvent over the original version. -Ian
      To: glosalist@yahoogroups.com
      From: gmillernd@...
      Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 10:05:28 -0500
      Subject: [glosalist] Stephan, Xavier




























      STEPHAN: Do you mean, you can't remember Latin endings, the endings I

      proposed or (some) Glosa endings?



      REAKTI: I used to be fairly fluent in Russian and German. No more!

      Languages are like most other things in life: They're a lot easier

      when you're young. I still remember Glosa - mostly. I'm not even sure

      my own name ends in Y anymore. :-)



      STEPHAN: And, what is the easiest? Root ending derivation rules like

      the ones I propose wouldn't make Glosa (or Glota) any more difficult,

      because you don't need to learn them (they are not productive as in

      Esperanto). You just need to know that "hand" is "manu" and not "mani"

      (as in "manipulate"), and that "nati" is "birth" and that "natio" is

      "nation" and not the other way round. That is the same "easiest" as

      before, isn't it? Glosa words like "manu", "nati" and "natio" are the

      same in Glota (my dialect). But they do follow root ending derivation

      rules, which shows that Glosa could have had them, too, and in some

      cases even gives the impression of having them.



      REAKTI: The one you remember is the easiest. It's like this: Glosa

      derives its vocabulary from modern Latin and Greek

      scientific/technical words. MANU is the preferred Glosa word. If I

      can't remember MANU, but I remember the English word MANIPULATE and

      derive the word as MANI instead, I have not made a mistake. I like not

      making mistakes. :-)



      XAVIER: it's natural that this discussion is happening on and on.

      People may get astonished at the dictionary (as I did) when they find

      many translations for a certain word, some just differing on the final

      vowel! This way the morphology of the language may look chaotic. Of

      course this may be due to the early Glosa textbooks. Anyway, the

      problem remains.



      REAKTI: When one realizes that Glosa words are derived from varying

      words from varying languages, one would expect the ends of the Glosa

      words to vary too.



      XAVIER: In my viewpoint are three options:



      1. Since the final vowel is not important, and it is only there to

      ease pronunciation, so let's give a certain final vowel to all words.

      -E is the characteristic vowel of the main Latin declension (the 3rd)

      and it is the characteristic ending of verbs, at their infinitive -re.

      I am really testing this -E option with a reformed Latino Sine

      Flexione.



      REAKTI: I would argue that there is no characteristic vowel in the

      original Latin. Latin speakers themselves added the E to make

      pronunciation easy. This E is often unstressed in the original Latin,

      is missing in such forms as ESSE and FERRE and FAC and DIC. I agree

      that adding the E in man-made language plans is a good idea.



      * * *



      Different international language plans have used different means of

      obtaining their base vocabulary. LSF did this directly from Latin,

      Esperanto from a mix of modern Romance and Germanic words, Glosa from

      modern scientific/technical terms, Lojban from languages all over the

      world. There is nothing wrong with any of these plans, they are simply

      different.



      Good luck with Glota! Maybe it will finally be the right one. You'll

      find there is no shortage of critics out there. :-) But the real trick

      is to get people to USE the language. Most people who criticize these

      languages rarely read or write more than a few sentences.



      When I started studying the international language problem, I wanted

      to test the languages by using them. (I still use LSF a little; see

      groups.yahoo.com/group/latinosineflexione.) Glosa was the one I

      learned the fastest. I also feel it most freely expresses ideas.



      Even more important is support. No international language will be

      successful without a group of people actively promoting it. Esperanto

      has the most support, therefore it is the one most people hear about.



      Saluta,

      _ _

      /.

      /\ Garx

      #
















      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Xavier Abadia
      Gary wrote: I would argue that there is no characteristic vowel in the original Latin. Latin speakers themselves added the E to make pronunciation easy. This
      Message 2 of 6 , Apr 3 4:09 AM
        Gary wrote: "I would argue that there is no characteristic vowel in the original Latin. Latin speakers themselves added the E to make pronunciation easy. This E is often unstressed in the original Latin, is missing in such forms as ESSE and FERRE and FAC and DIC. I agree that adding the E in man-made language plans is a good idea."

        Dear Gary, I don't know well the original Latin, but classical Latin is what matters to Peano's Interlingua: the classical 3rd declension has E as its characteristic vowel. The 3rd declension has most of the nouns (38%, while 2nd has 32%, and 1st has 23%), and it is the only "pan-gender" declension, which is an invaluable advantage. When they say "cave canem" they don't worry about the gender of the dog. But at "homo homini lupus", people may reply (and they continually do): why the masculine ("lupus") must represent both males and females?

        I'm happy you agree that adding the E in conlangs is a good idea. Indeed I don't know any conlang having all words with the same final vowel, but I'm trying so. If keeping a reduced set of basic words about 1000 (and lots of compound words), and keeping a set of grammatical particles clearly indicated, then such a conlang might work. Interglossa was partially trying this. It intended to be an isolated language with no suffixes at all, but its several final vowels (-a, -i / -o / -e) might be seen as actual suffixes.

        Greetings.
      • Xavier Abadia
        Absolutely, Ian. My criticism is especially against the GID dictionary, for not showing a clear standard of the language. The lack of a standard is a serious
        Message 3 of 6 , Apr 3 4:22 AM
          Absolutely, Ian. My criticism is especially against the GID dictionary, for not showing a clear standard of the language. The lack of a standard is a serious handicap to an auxiliary language. Instead, the GID seems to gather blindly the vocabulary of all the subsequent dictionaries of Clark and Ashby. I wonder what "significant body of content" was taken as the basis of the GID. Maybe "Plu Glosa Nota"? By the way, I wish I could find "Plu Glosa Nota" online.
          Greetings.

          --- In glosalist@yahoogroups.com, Ian Niles <ian_niles@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          > A couple of comments. I think we can all agree that, all thing being equal, it is preferable for a derivation scheme for words of an IAL to be based on ancient Greek/Latin roots (a la LsF), rather than on a set of English words. For one thing, if we suppose that all speakers of a given IAL are fluent in English, then there is of course no point to an IAL. For another thing, the words of many modern languages are often systematically derived from ancient Greek/Latin, so if you know how words in your language are derived from ancient Greek/Latin and there is a derivation rule from the classical roots to the IAL, you can generate a good body of vocabulary for the IAL automatically, regardless of which modern European language you start from. Incidentally, this is one feature I really like about Occidental/Interlingue. That being said, any convincing proposal to revise a language, whether a natural language or an IAL, does not come in the form of an edict. It comes in the form of a signficant body of content that is expressed using the revised version of the language. This can be seen as the experimental justification for the proposal, and the community (or a community) can judge whether or not it's an improvent over the original version. -Ian

          > To: glosalist@yahoogroups.com
          > From: gmillernd@...
          > Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 10:05:28 -0500
          > Subject: [glosalist] Stephan, Xavier
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > STEPHAN: Do you mean, you can't remember Latin endings, the endings I
          >
          > proposed or (some) Glosa endings?
          >
          >
          >
          > REAKTI: I used to be fairly fluent in Russian and German. No more!
          >
          > Languages are like most other things in life: They're a lot easier
          >
          > when you're young. I still remember Glosa - mostly. I'm not even sure
          >
          > my own name ends in Y anymore. :-)
          >
          >
          >
          > STEPHAN: And, what is the easiest? Root ending derivation rules like
          >
          > the ones I propose wouldn't make Glosa (or Glota) any more difficult,
          >
          > because you don't need to learn them (they are not productive as in
          >
          > Esperanto). You just need to know that "hand" is "manu" and not "mani"
          >
          > (as in "manipulate"), and that "nati" is "birth" and that "natio" is
          >
          > "nation" and not the other way round. That is the same "easiest" as
          >
          > before, isn't it? Glosa words like "manu", "nati" and "natio" are the
          >
          > same in Glota (my dialect). But they do follow root ending derivation
          >
          > rules, which shows that Glosa could have had them, too, and in some
          >
          > cases even gives the impression of having them.
          >
          >
          >
          > REAKTI: The one you remember is the easiest. It's like this: Glosa
          >
          > derives its vocabulary from modern Latin and Greek
          >
          > scientific/technical words. MANU is the preferred Glosa word. If I
          >
          > can't remember MANU, but I remember the English word MANIPULATE and
          >
          > derive the word as MANI instead, I have not made a mistake. I like not
          >
          > making mistakes. :-)
          >
          >
          >
          > XAVIER: it's natural that this discussion is happening on and on.
          >
          > People may get astonished at the dictionary (as I did) when they find
          >
          > many translations for a certain word, some just differing on the final
          >
          > vowel! This way the morphology of the language may look chaotic. Of
          >
          > course this may be due to the early Glosa textbooks. Anyway, the
          >
          > problem remains.
          >
          >
          >
          > REAKTI: When one realizes that Glosa words are derived from varying
          >
          > words from varying languages, one would expect the ends of the Glosa
          >
          > words to vary too.
          >
          >
          >
          > XAVIER: In my viewpoint are three options:
          >
          >
          >
          > 1. Since the final vowel is not important, and it is only there to
          >
          > ease pronunciation, so let's give a certain final vowel to all words.
          >
          > -E is the characteristic vowel of the main Latin declension (the 3rd)
          >
          > and it is the characteristic ending of verbs, at their infinitive -re.
          >
          > I am really testing this -E option with a reformed Latino Sine
          >
          > Flexione.
          >
          >
          >
          > REAKTI: I would argue that there is no characteristic vowel in the
          >
          > original Latin. Latin speakers themselves added the E to make
          >
          > pronunciation easy. This E is often unstressed in the original Latin,
          >
          > is missing in such forms as ESSE and FERRE and FAC and DIC. I agree
          >
          > that adding the E in man-made language plans is a good idea.
          >
          >
          >
          > * * *
          >
          >
          >
          > Different international language plans have used different means of
          >
          > obtaining their base vocabulary. LSF did this directly from Latin,
          >
          > Esperanto from a mix of modern Romance and Germanic words, Glosa from
          >
          > modern scientific/technical terms, Lojban from languages all over the
          >
          > world. There is nothing wrong with any of these plans, they are simply
          >
          > different.
          >
          >
          >
          > Good luck with Glota! Maybe it will finally be the right one. You'll
          >
          > find there is no shortage of critics out there. :-) But the real trick
          >
          > is to get people to USE the language. Most people who criticize these
          >
          > languages rarely read or write more than a few sentences.
          >
          >
          >
          > When I started studying the international language problem, I wanted
          >
          > to test the languages by using them. (I still use LSF a little; see
          >
          > groups.yahoo.com/group/latinosineflexione.) Glosa was the one I
          >
          > learned the fastest. I also feel it most freely expresses ideas.
          >
          >
          >
          > Even more important is support. No international language will be
          >
          > successful without a group of people actively promoting it. Esperanto
          >
          > has the most support, therefore it is the one most people hear about.
          >
          >
          >
          > Saluta,
          >
          > _ _
          >
          > /.
          >
          > /\ Garx
          >
          > #
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
        • Ian Niles
          I disagree with your criticisms of the GID, Xavier. I think we owe an enormous debt of gratitude to Marcel Springer and the other folks who spent long hours
          Message 4 of 6 , Apr 3 8:52 AM
            I disagree with your criticisms of the GID, Xavier. I think we owe an enormous debt of gratitude to Marcel Springer and the other folks who spent long hours culling through all of the Glosa resources to compile this dictionary. It's not perfect, but I believe that it's on the same level as a foreign language dictionary created by professional (and paid) lexicographers. Every time I translate one of Aesop's fables, I rely on the GID and I am ever grateful for its clear, comprehensive guidance in all things Glosa. By the way, you can find several issues of "Plu Glosa Nota" here: http://www.glosa.org/pgn/index.html. -Ian
            To: glosalist@yahoogroups.com
            From: xabadiar@...
            Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 11:22:38 +0000
            Subject: [glosalist] Re: Stephan, Xavier




























            Absolutely, Ian. My criticism is especially against the GID dictionary, for not showing a clear standard of the language. The lack of a standard is a serious handicap to an auxiliary language. Instead, the GID seems to gather blindly the vocabulary of all the subsequent dictionaries of Clark and Ashby. I wonder what "significant body of content" was taken as the basis of the GID. Maybe "Plu Glosa Nota"? By the way, I wish I could find "Plu Glosa Nota" online.

            Greetings.



            --- In glosalist@yahoogroups.com, Ian Niles <ian_niles@...> wrote:

            >

            >

            > A couple of comments. I think we can all agree that, all thing being equal, it is preferable for a derivation scheme for words of an IAL to be based on ancient Greek/Latin roots (a la LsF), rather than on a set of English words. For one thing, if we suppose that all speakers of a given IAL are fluent in English, then there is of course no point to an IAL. For another thing, the words of many modern languages are often systematically derived from ancient Greek/Latin, so if you know how words in your language are derived from ancient Greek/Latin and there is a derivation rule from the classical roots to the IAL, you can generate a good body of vocabulary for the IAL automatically, regardless of which modern European language you start from. Incidentally, this is one feature I really like about Occidental/Interlingue. That being said, any convincing proposal to revise a language, whether a natural language or an IAL, does not come in the form of an edict. It comes in the form of a signficant body of content that is expressed using the revised version of the language. This can be seen as the experimental justification for the proposal, and the community (or a community) can judge whether or not it's an improvent over the original version. -Ian



            > To: glosalist@yahoogroups.com

            > From: gmillernd@...

            > Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 10:05:28 -0500

            > Subject: [glosalist] Stephan, Xavier

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            > STEPHAN: Do you mean, you can't remember Latin endings, the endings I

            >

            > proposed or (some) Glosa endings?

            >

            >

            >

            > REAKTI: I used to be fairly fluent in Russian and German. No more!

            >

            > Languages are like most other things in life: They're a lot easier

            >

            > when you're young. I still remember Glosa - mostly. I'm not even sure

            >

            > my own name ends in Y anymore. :-)

            >

            >

            >

            > STEPHAN: And, what is the easiest? Root ending derivation rules like

            >

            > the ones I propose wouldn't make Glosa (or Glota) any more difficult,

            >

            > because you don't need to learn them (they are not productive as in

            >

            > Esperanto). You just need to know that "hand" is "manu" and not "mani"

            >

            > (as in "manipulate"), and that "nati" is "birth" and that "natio" is

            >

            > "nation" and not the other way round. That is the same "easiest" as

            >

            > before, isn't it? Glosa words like "manu", "nati" and "natio" are the

            >

            > same in Glota (my dialect). But they do follow root ending derivation

            >

            > rules, which shows that Glosa could have had them, too, and in some

            >

            > cases even gives the impression of having them.

            >

            >

            >

            > REAKTI: The one you remember is the easiest. It's like this: Glosa

            >

            > derives its vocabulary from modern Latin and Greek

            >

            > scientific/technical words. MANU is the preferred Glosa word. If I

            >

            > can't remember MANU, but I remember the English word MANIPULATE and

            >

            > derive the word as MANI instead, I have not made a mistake. I like not

            >

            > making mistakes. :-)

            >

            >

            >

            > XAVIER: it's natural that this discussion is happening on and on.

            >

            > People may get astonished at the dictionary (as I did) when they find

            >

            > many translations for a certain word, some just differing on the final

            >

            > vowel! This way the morphology of the language may look chaotic. Of

            >

            > course this may be due to the early Glosa textbooks. Anyway, the

            >

            > problem remains.

            >

            >

            >

            > REAKTI: When one realizes that Glosa words are derived from varying

            >

            > words from varying languages, one would expect the ends of the Glosa

            >

            > words to vary too.

            >

            >

            >

            > XAVIER: In my viewpoint are three options:

            >

            >

            >

            > 1. Since the final vowel is not important, and it is only there to

            >

            > ease pronunciation, so let's give a certain final vowel to all words.

            >

            > -E is the characteristic vowel of the main Latin declension (the 3rd)

            >

            > and it is the characteristic ending of verbs, at their infinitive -re.

            >

            > I am really testing this -E option with a reformed Latino Sine

            >

            > Flexione.

            >

            >

            >

            > REAKTI: I would argue that there is no characteristic vowel in the

            >

            > original Latin. Latin speakers themselves added the E to make

            >

            > pronunciation easy. This E is often unstressed in the original Latin,

            >

            > is missing in such forms as ESSE and FERRE and FAC and DIC. I agree

            >

            > that adding the E in man-made language plans is a good idea.

            >

            >

            >

            > * * *

            >

            >

            >

            > Different international language plans have used different means of

            >

            > obtaining their base vocabulary. LSF did this directly from Latin,

            >

            > Esperanto from a mix of modern Romance and Germanic words, Glosa from

            >

            > modern scientific/technical terms, Lojban from languages all over the

            >

            > world. There is nothing wrong with any of these plans, they are simply

            >

            > different.

            >

            >

            >

            > Good luck with Glota! Maybe it will finally be the right one. You'll

            >

            > find there is no shortage of critics out there. :-) But the real trick

            >

            > is to get people to USE the language. Most people who criticize these

            >

            > languages rarely read or write more than a few sentences.

            >

            >

            >

            > When I started studying the international language problem, I wanted

            >

            > to test the languages by using them. (I still use LSF a little; see

            >

            > groups.yahoo.com/group/latinosineflexione.) Glosa was the one I

            >

            > learned the fastest. I also feel it most freely expresses ideas.

            >

            >

            >

            > Even more important is support. No international language will be

            >

            > successful without a group of people actively promoting it. Esperanto

            >

            > has the most support, therefore it is the one most people hear about.

            >

            >

            >

            > Saluta,

            >

            > _ _

            >

            > /.

            >

            > /\ Garx

            >

            > #

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

            >


















            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Xavier Abadia
            Thanks, Ian.
            Message 5 of 6 , Apr 5 11:14 AM
              Thanks, Ian.

              --- In glosalist@yahoogroups.com, Ian Niles <ian_niles@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              > I disagree with your criticisms of the GID, Xavier. I think we owe an enormous debt of gratitude to Marcel Springer and the other folks who spent long hours culling through all of the Glosa resources to compile this dictionary. It's not perfect, but I believe that it's on the same level as a foreign language dictionary created by professional (and paid) lexicographers. Every time I translate one of Aesop's fables, I rely on the GID and I am ever grateful for its clear, comprehensive guidance in all things Glosa. By the way, you can find several issues of "Plu Glosa Nota" here: http://www.glosa.org/pgn/index.html. -Ian
              > To: glosalist@yahoogroups.com
              > From: xabadiar@...
              > Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 11:22:38 +0000
              > Subject: [glosalist] Re: Stephan, Xavier
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Absolutely, Ian. My criticism is especially against the GID dictionary, for not showing a clear standard of the language. The lack of a standard is a serious handicap to an auxiliary language. Instead, the GID seems to gather blindly the vocabulary of all the subsequent dictionaries of Clark and Ashby. I wonder what "significant body of content" was taken as the basis of the GID. Maybe "Plu Glosa Nota"? By the way, I wish I could find "Plu Glosa Nota" online.
              >
              > Greetings.
              >
              >
              >
              > --- In glosalist@yahoogroups.com, Ian Niles <ian_niles@> wrote:
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > > A couple of comments. I think we can all agree that, all thing being equal, it is preferable for a derivation scheme for words of an IAL to be based on ancient Greek/Latin roots (a la LsF), rather than on a set of English words. For one thing, if we suppose that all speakers of a given IAL are fluent in English, then there is of course no point to an IAL. For another thing, the words of many modern languages are often systematically derived from ancient Greek/Latin, so if you know how words in your language are derived from ancient Greek/Latin and there is a derivation rule from the classical roots to the IAL, you can generate a good body of vocabulary for the IAL automatically, regardless of which modern European language you start from. Incidentally, this is one feature I really like about Occidental/Interlingue. That being said, any convincing proposal to revise a language, whether a natural language or an IAL, does not come in the form of an edict. It comes in the form of a signficant body of content that is expressed using the revised version of the language. This can be seen as the experimental justification for the proposal, and the community (or a community) can judge whether or not it's an improvent over the original version. -Ian
              >
              >
              >
              > > To: glosalist@yahoogroups.com
              >
              > > From: gmillernd@
              >
              > > Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 10:05:28 -0500
              >
              > > Subject: [glosalist] Stephan, Xavier
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > > STEPHAN: Do you mean, you can't remember Latin endings, the endings I
              >
              > >
              >
              > > proposed or (some) Glosa endings?
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > > REAKTI: I used to be fairly fluent in Russian and German. No more!
              >
              > >
              >
              > > Languages are like most other things in life: They're a lot easier
              >
              > >
              >
              > > when you're young. I still remember Glosa - mostly. I'm not even sure
              >
              > >
              >
              > > my own name ends in Y anymore. :-)
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > > STEPHAN: And, what is the easiest? Root ending derivation rules like
              >
              > >
              >
              > > the ones I propose wouldn't make Glosa (or Glota) any more difficult,
              >
              > >
              >
              > > because you don't need to learn them (they are not productive as in
              >
              > >
              >
              > > Esperanto). You just need to know that "hand" is "manu" and not "mani"
              >
              > >
              >
              > > (as in "manipulate"), and that "nati" is "birth" and that "natio" is
              >
              > >
              >
              > > "nation" and not the other way round. That is the same "easiest" as
              >
              > >
              >
              > > before, isn't it? Glosa words like "manu", "nati" and "natio" are the
              >
              > >
              >
              > > same in Glota (my dialect). But they do follow root ending derivation
              >
              > >
              >
              > > rules, which shows that Glosa could have had them, too, and in some
              >
              > >
              >
              > > cases even gives the impression of having them.
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > > REAKTI: The one you remember is the easiest. It's like this: Glosa
              >
              > >
              >
              > > derives its vocabulary from modern Latin and Greek
              >
              > >
              >
              > > scientific/technical words. MANU is the preferred Glosa word. If I
              >
              > >
              >
              > > can't remember MANU, but I remember the English word MANIPULATE and
              >
              > >
              >
              > > derive the word as MANI instead, I have not made a mistake. I like not
              >
              > >
              >
              > > making mistakes. :-)
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > > XAVIER: it's natural that this discussion is happening on and on.
              >
              > >
              >
              > > People may get astonished at the dictionary (as I did) when they find
              >
              > >
              >
              > > many translations for a certain word, some just differing on the final
              >
              > >
              >
              > > vowel! This way the morphology of the language may look chaotic. Of
              >
              > >
              >
              > > course this may be due to the early Glosa textbooks. Anyway, the
              >
              > >
              >
              > > problem remains.
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > > REAKTI: When one realizes that Glosa words are derived from varying
              >
              > >
              >
              > > words from varying languages, one would expect the ends of the Glosa
              >
              > >
              >
              > > words to vary too.
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > > XAVIER: In my viewpoint are three options:
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > > 1. Since the final vowel is not important, and it is only there to
              >
              > >
              >
              > > ease pronunciation, so let's give a certain final vowel to all words.
              >
              > >
              >
              > > -E is the characteristic vowel of the main Latin declension (the 3rd)
              >
              > >
              >
              > > and it is the characteristic ending of verbs, at their infinitive -re.
              >
              > >
              >
              > > I am really testing this -E option with a reformed Latino Sine
              >
              > >
              >
              > > Flexione.
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > > REAKTI: I would argue that there is no characteristic vowel in the
              >
              > >
              >
              > > original Latin. Latin speakers themselves added the E to make
              >
              > >
              >
              > > pronunciation easy. This E is often unstressed in the original Latin,
              >
              > >
              >
              > > is missing in such forms as ESSE and FERRE and FAC and DIC. I agree
              >
              > >
              >
              > > that adding the E in man-made language plans is a good idea.
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > > * * *
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > > Different international language plans have used different means of
              >
              > >
              >
              > > obtaining their base vocabulary. LSF did this directly from Latin,
              >
              > >
              >
              > > Esperanto from a mix of modern Romance and Germanic words, Glosa from
              >
              > >
              >
              > > modern scientific/technical terms, Lojban from languages all over the
              >
              > >
              >
              > > world. There is nothing wrong with any of these plans, they are simply
              >
              > >
              >
              > > different.
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > > Good luck with Glota! Maybe it will finally be the right one. You'll
              >
              > >
              >
              > > find there is no shortage of critics out there. :-) But the real trick
              >
              > >
              >
              > > is to get people to USE the language. Most people who criticize these
              >
              > >
              >
              > > languages rarely read or write more than a few sentences.
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > > When I started studying the international language problem, I wanted
              >
              > >
              >
              > > to test the languages by using them. (I still use LSF a little; see
              >
              > >
              >
              > > groups.yahoo.com/group/latinosineflexione.) Glosa was the one I
              >
              > >
              >
              > > learned the fastest. I also feel it most freely expresses ideas.
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > > Even more important is support. No international language will be
              >
              > >
              >
              > > successful without a group of people actively promoting it. Esperanto
              >
              > >
              >
              > > has the most support, therefore it is the one most people hear about.
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > > Saluta,
              >
              > >
              >
              > > _ _
              >
              > >
              >
              > > /.
              >
              > >
              >
              > > /\ Garx
              >
              > >
              >
              > > #
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
              > >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.