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

Rules and Guidelines: word order with "u"

Expand Messages
  • Kim
    Karo Glosa-pe, I have been reading the Glosa Internet Dictionary much lately, and have a program that can parse glen.txt . A huge thank you to Marcel and the
    Message 1 of 4 , Feb 13 6:33 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Karo Glosa-pe,

      I have been reading the Glosa Internet Dictionary much lately, and have a program that can parse 'glen.txt'. A huge thank you to Marcel and the other contributors for their work! When my program (written in Python) is sufficiently developed, I can make it available, if desired. My initial goal is to produce an HTML version that has bold main entries. I plan to rerun it as new releases appear from Marcel.

      The next question I have for you all concerns the grammar rules of Glosa. I know that Wendy Ashby and Ron Clark rarely stated them. Learning from examples, as presented in "18 Steps", is an excellent way to learn. But afterwards when I have a question about usage, it is painful to scan through lots of text to discover if usage X is ever done. So I would like to try to deduce what rules of the grammar there seem to be, as well as what are simply guidelines, and present them to you all for review and correction. Loosely, a 'rule' is *always* followed, and a 'guideline' is *usually* followed, and may have to do with good style (however that is defined) more so than correctness. (I hope not to get into prescriptionist vs descriptionist discussions. :)

      For example, a rule would be: "u" always precedes the noun it modifies, possibly with intervening modifiers.


      So, to begin: is this a rule?

      1. When 'u' is used with a noun that also has one or more adjectives, "u" always precedes the adjectives. This applies equally to "un" and "plu".

      Correct: un hedo prince u mega kali religio-do
      Incorrect: hedo un prince mega u kali religio-do

      I scanned "18 Steps" and did not find any counterexamples, but I could have missed one, and even absence there is not a proof. Please send your thoughts, corrections, discussion. For now I am trying to stay strictly with the documents produced by W.A. and R.C from 1985 onwards, i.e., the official defining docs of the language. I know outside of that there seems to be a lot of variation...

      Saluta e Gratia!
      Kim
    • Gary
      Kim-- A good start is http://glosa.org/en/gramm.htm and look under Syntax. Saluta, _ _ /. / Gary #
      Message 2 of 4 , Feb 16 3:10 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Kim--

        A good start is

        http://glosa.org/en/gramm.htm

        and look under "Syntax."

        Saluta,

        _ _
        /.
        /\ Gary
        #

        --- In glosalist@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" <kimesperanto@...> wrote:
        >
        > Karo Glosa-pe,
        >
        > I have been reading the Glosa Internet Dictionary much lately, and have a program that can parse 'glen.txt'. A huge thank you to Marcel and the other contributors for their work! When my program (written in Python) is sufficiently developed, I can make it available, if desired. My initial goal is to produce an HTML version that has bold main entries. I plan to rerun it as new releases appear from Marcel.
        >
        > The next question I have for you all concerns the grammar rules of Glosa. I know that Wendy Ashby and Ron Clark rarely stated them. Learning from examples, as presented in "18 Steps", is an excellent way to learn. But afterwards when I have a question about usage, it is painful to scan through lots of text to discover if usage X is ever done. So I would like to try to deduce what rules of the grammar there seem to be, as well as what are simply guidelines, and present them to you all for review and correction. Loosely, a 'rule' is *always* followed, and a 'guideline' is *usually* followed, and may have to do with good style (however that is defined) more so than correctness. (I hope not to get into prescriptionist vs descriptionist discussions. :)
        >
        > For example, a rule would be: "u" always precedes the noun it modifies, possibly with intervening modifiers.
        >
        >
        > So, to begin: is this a rule?
        >
        > 1. When 'u' is used with a noun that also has one or more adjectives, "u" always precedes the adjectives. This applies equally to "un" and "plu".
        >
        > Correct: un hedo prince u mega kali religio-do
        > Incorrect: hedo un prince mega u kali religio-do
        >
        > I scanned "18 Steps" and did not find any counterexamples, but I could have missed one, and even absence there is not a proof. Please send your thoughts, corrections, discussion. For now I am trying to stay strictly with the documents produced by W.A. and R.C from 1985 onwards, i.e., the official defining docs of the language. I know outside of that there seems to be a lot of variation...
        >
        > Saluta e Gratia!
        > Kim
        >
      • Kim
        Gary, Thanks, I am in the process of reading that now. I see that Robin Gaskell authored that paper, and I noticed it has the mark © Glosa Education
        Message 3 of 4 , Feb 18 9:01 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          Gary,

          Thanks, I am in the process of reading that now.

          I see that Robin Gaskell authored that paper, and I noticed it has the mark "© Glosa Education Organisation, Richmond U.K., 1999" at the bottom. Do you know - does the latter mean that Wendy Ashby reviewed this and gave it 'official' status?

          I ask because some statements do not at first glance seem correct, but I'd like to research them before raising them here.

          Saluta!
          Kim


          --- In glosalist@yahoogroups.com, "Gary" <gmillernd@...> wrote:
          >
          > Kim--
          >
          > A good start is
          >
          > http://glosa.org/en/gramm.htm
          >
          > and look under "Syntax."
          >
          > Saluta,
          >
          > _ _
          > /.
          > /\ Gary
          > #
          >
          > --- In glosalist@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" <kimesperanto@> wrote:
          > >
          > > Karo Glosa-pe,
          > >
          > > I have been reading the Glosa Internet Dictionary much lately, and have a program that can parse 'glen.txt'. A huge thank you to Marcel and the other contributors for their work! When my program (written in Python) is sufficiently developed, I can make it available, if desired. My initial goal is to produce an HTML version that has bold main entries. I plan to rerun it as new releases appear from Marcel.
          > >
          > > The next question I have for you all concerns the grammar rules of Glosa. I know that Wendy Ashby and Ron Clark rarely stated them. Learning from examples, as presented in "18 Steps", is an excellent way to learn. But afterwards when I have a question about usage, it is painful to scan through lots of text to discover if usage X is ever done. So I would like to try to deduce what rules of the grammar there seem to be, as well as what are simply guidelines, and present them to you all for review and correction. Loosely, a 'rule' is *always* followed, and a 'guideline' is *usually* followed, and may have to do with good style (however that is defined) more so than correctness. (I hope not to get into prescriptionist vs descriptionist discussions. :)
          > >
          > > For example, a rule would be: "u" always precedes the noun it modifies, possibly with intervening modifiers.
          > >
          > >
          > > So, to begin: is this a rule?
          > >
          > > 1. When 'u' is used with a noun that also has one or more adjectives, "u" always precedes the adjectives. This applies equally to "un" and "plu".
          > >
          > > Correct: un hedo prince u mega kali religio-do
          > > Incorrect: hedo un prince mega u kali religio-do
          > >
          > > I scanned "18 Steps" and did not find any counterexamples, but I could have missed one, and even absence there is not a proof. Please send your thoughts, corrections, discussion. For now I am trying to stay strictly with the documents produced by W.A. and R.C from 1985 onwards, i.e., the official defining docs of the language. I know outside of that there seems to be a lot of variation...
          > >
          > > Saluta e Gratia!
          > > Kim
          > >
          >
        • Gary
          Karo Kim-- My guess is that the copyright is there because it contained (and then greatly expanded on) text that was already printed by the Glosa Education
          Message 4 of 4 , Feb 19 7:59 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            Karo Kim--

            My guess is that the copyright is there because it contained (and then greatly expanded on) text that was already printed by the Glosa Education Organisation (GEO). Ron Clark (1914-2000) may have had a hand in this text too.

            Saluta,
            _ _
            /.
            /\ Gary
            #

            --- In glosalist@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" <kimesperanto@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            > Gary,
            >
            > Thanks, I am in the process of reading that now.
            >
            > I see that Robin Gaskell authored that paper, and I noticed it has the mark "© Glosa Education Organisation, Richmond U.K., 1999" at the bottom. Do you know - does the latter mean that Wendy Ashby reviewed this and gave it 'official' status?
            >
            > I ask because some statements do not at first glance seem correct, but I'd like to research them before raising them here.
            >
            > Saluta!
            > Kim
            >
            >
            > --- In glosalist@yahoogroups.com, "Gary" <gmillernd@> wrote:
            > >
            > > Kim--
            > >
            > > A good start is
            > >
            > > http://glosa.org/en/gramm.htm
            > >
            > > and look under "Syntax."
            > >
            > > Saluta,
            > >
            > > _ _
            > > /.
            > > /\ Gary
            > > #
            > >
            > > --- In glosalist@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" <kimesperanto@> wrote:
            > > >
            > > > Karo Glosa-pe,
            > > >
            > > > I have been reading the Glosa Internet Dictionary much lately, and have a program that can parse 'glen.txt'. A huge thank you to Marcel and the other contributors for their work! When my program (written in Python) is sufficiently developed, I can make it available, if desired. My initial goal is to produce an HTML version that has bold main entries. I plan to rerun it as new releases appear from Marcel.
            > > >
            > > > The next question I have for you all concerns the grammar rules of Glosa. I know that Wendy Ashby and Ron Clark rarely stated them. Learning from examples, as presented in "18 Steps", is an excellent way to learn. But afterwards when I have a question about usage, it is painful to scan through lots of text to discover if usage X is ever done. So I would like to try to deduce what rules of the grammar there seem to be, as well as what are simply guidelines, and present them to you all for review and correction. Loosely, a 'rule' is *always* followed, and a 'guideline' is *usually* followed, and may have to do with good style (however that is defined) more so than correctness. (I hope not to get into prescriptionist vs descriptionist discussions. :)
            > > >
            > > > For example, a rule would be: "u" always precedes the noun it modifies, possibly with intervening modifiers.
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > So, to begin: is this a rule?
            > > >
            > > > 1. When 'u' is used with a noun that also has one or more adjectives, "u" always precedes the adjectives. This applies equally to "un" and "plu".
            > > >
            > > > Correct: un hedo prince u mega kali religio-do
            > > > Incorrect: hedo un prince mega u kali religio-do
            > > >
            > > > I scanned "18 Steps" and did not find any counterexamples, but I could have missed one, and even absence there is not a proof. Please send your thoughts, corrections, discussion. For now I am trying to stay strictly with the documents produced by W.A. and R.C from 1985 onwards, i.e., the official defining docs of the language. I know outside of that there seems to be a lot of variation...
            > > >
            > > > Saluta e Gratia!
            > > > Kim
            > > >
            > >
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.