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

jhnavis@yahoo.co.uk

Expand Messages
  • John Avis
    Mi ne es glosa-pe, sed glosa interese mi. I write this as an outsider, but I think Glosa could have great potential. Depending on its meaning one word can
    Message 1 of 11 , Oct 4, 2005
      Mi ne es glosa-pe, sed glosa interese mi.

      I write this as an outsider, but I think Glosa could
      have great potential.

      Depending on its meaning one word can serve as noun,
      adjective, verb,
      adverb and even a preposition - less words to learn.
      Fine !
      However, such a language does have its downside. It is
      very easy to write
      a sentence that is incomprehensible to the reader.
      English can do that too,
      even for native speakers !

      I have found most Glosa sentences easy to read, but
      some are more difficult to
      decipher than Classical Latin. I feel this must put
      people off the language.

      To show what I mean I am using an example text from
      the Glosa website.

      -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Glosa - puri komunika
      (Ronald Clark & Wendy Ashby, © GEO, 1996; from the
      newspaper "Plu Glosa Nota",
      ISSN 0265-6892, No. 75, January/February 1996; HTML by
      Paul O. Bartlett, 1996)

      Ex kron a kron uno civi fu protesta; "Sed Glosa feno
      kopi un English modela;
      sura id debi difere?"

      Panto Cina ami dice iso. Glosa funktio iso Cina
      lingua.

      -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      In the above example the first sentence is fine. I
      could read this without having to
      consult a vocabulary. The words "fu, feno, debi"
      indicate the verb cluster and the
      rest of the sentence falls into place.

      Not so in the next two shorter sentences. I have no
      idea where the verbal cluster begins.
      In the context I think the point is being made that
      Glosa is similar to Chinese, but
      not being able to get the exact meaning of the
      sentences, leaves me in some doubt.

      In the first sentence, is the verbal cluster, 'dice',
      'dice iso', or perhaps even
      'ami dice iso'?

      Literally the sentence says:
      " all china friend say identical"

      Assuming that 'dice' is the verb, are pan cina ami
      agreeing with the criticism
      in the first sentence that Glosa is too much like
      English, or are they saying
      that Glosa is like Chinese, which the third sentence
      seems to say ?

      In the third sentence I assume that the verb is either
      funktio, or iso, or both.
      I can, I think, get the meaning, but it would be nice
      to be sure.

      In the above example it is a just bit annoying, but in
      a different context it could
      mean that a reader comes away with totally the wrong
      meaning, and that is the sort
      of thing that would put people off Glosa.

      May I, as an outsider, suggest that perhaps a 'nu'
      could be slipped into such
      sentences to split off the subject cluster from the
      verbal cluster. The easier it
      is to read, the more people may want to read it.

      I have also noticed that there are older versions of
      the vocabulary in existence,
      and it is not clear which one you should be using.
      This is surely not helpful to anyone wishing to learn
      Glosa.

      Sorry for the criticism, but it is meant to be
      contructive. I think the secret of
      Glosa is to write clearly and simply, even if it takes
      a few more words to do so, and
      that the writer should take care to ensure that the
      reader will easily be able to
      understand what has been written.

      Good luck to pan glosa-pe ! I hope you succeed.

      John Avis





      ___________________________________________________________
      How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
      snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
    • sydpidd@aol.com
      hello be patient with us i agree with you very much, i have been saying what you say for a few years and have been working on it - when i get time i ll, put a
      Message 2 of 11 , Oct 4, 2005
        hello be patient with us"
        i agree with you very much, i have been saying what you say for a few years
        and have been working on it - when i get time i'll, put a summary here - i
        shouls like yiur views
        syd
        p s we could start by not using caps - in east asia etc, they do


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • sydpidd@aol.com
        as you say, we need to know quickly and easily where the verb phrase starts - the first word could be pa , fu , nu , du , sio ( i ve been using du
        Message 3 of 11 , Oct 4, 2005
          as you say, we need to know quickly and easily where the verb phrase starts -
          the first word could be "pa" , "fu" , "nu", "du", "sio" ( i've been using "
          du" for the present tense) and those words could be used for nothing else so
          "now" might be "nu-tem" and so on.
          u ergo-pe du ergo boni e u an ergo du ergo in u longi tem.
          much of the difficulty in reading g wouls be reduced this way'
          in the case of "es", it is rare for it to be used as anything but a verb so
          "du" could be left out
          u an ergo es ma boni nu-tem de id pa es
          syd


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Robin Fairbridge Gaskell
          ... * So far so good. **A nu fo boni. ... * The inflections, beloved of people who are good at languages, do not suit everybody. Glosa has Syntax-based
          Message 4 of 11 , Oct 9, 2005
            At 09:09 PM 10/4/05, John Avis pa grafo:
            >Mi ne es glosa-pe, sed glosa interese mi.
            >
            >I write this as an outsider, but I think Glosa could
            >have great potential.
            * So far so good. **A nu fo boni.

            >Depending on its meaning one word can serve as noun,
            >adjective, verb,
            >adverb and even a preposition - less words to learn.
            >Fine !
            * The inflections, beloved of people who are good
            at languages, do not suit everybody. Glosa has
            "Syntax-based Grammar" and thus the sequencing of
            the words gives the language its grammar. Less
            words and less inflections: fine!


            >However, such a language does have its downside. It is
            >very easy to write
            >a sentence that is incomprehensible to the reader.
            >English can do that too,
            >even for native speakers !
            * Quite so. A study of 'Good Syntax' seems necessary.
            With clearly thought-out syntax, the function of
            each word ought to be clear, and thus, the
            meaning of the whole sentence should, accordingly, also be meaningful.

            I have found most Glosa sentences easy to read, but
            >some are more difficult to
            >decipher than Classical Latin. I feel this must put
            >people off the language.
            * Usually because the writer has tried to be too
            economical with words, and has over-used the few present.

            >To show what I mean I am using an example text from
            >the Glosa website.
            >
            >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            >Glosa - puri komunika
            >(Ronald Clark & Wendy Ashby, © GEO, 1996; from the
            >newspaper "Plu Glosa Nota",
            >ISSN 0265-6892, No. 75, January/February 1996; HTML by
            >Paul O. Bartlett, 1996)
            >
            >Ex kron a kron uno civi fu protesta; "Sed Glosa feno
            >kopi un English modela;
            >sura id debi difere?"
            >
            >Panto Cina ami dice iso. Glosa funktio iso Cina
            >lingua.
            >
            * G. Panto Cina ami dice iso.
            glos. (all China friend say as/the_same )
            E. All Chinese friends say the same.

            G. Glosa funktio iso Cina lingua.
            glos. (Glosa function as/the_same China language )
            E. Glosa works the same as Chinese.

            >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            >
            >In the above example the first sentence is fine. I
            >could read this without having to
            >consult a vocabulary. The words "fu, feno, debi"
            >indicate the verb cluster and the
            >rest of the sentence falls into place.
            >
            >Not so in the next two shorter sentences. I have no
            >idea where the verbal cluster begins.
            >In the context I think the point is being made that
            >Glosa is similar to Chinese, but
            >not being able to get the exact meaning of the
            >sentences, leaves me in some doubt.
            * Interesting: the idea of a 'VERB cluster' seems to have thrown you.
            The ~iso~ is more of a "verb auxilliary"
            than anything. In this sentence structure, the
            ~iso~ is 'helping' the VERB ~dice~, so acts as
            either a Modifier (=adverb) or an Auxillary to
            the verb. The whole VERB Clause (=verb cluster)
            would be ~dice iso~. This sentence uses the Intransitive form.

            >In the first sentence, is the verbal cluster, 'dice',
            >'dice iso', or perhaps even
            >'ami dice iso'?
            * Running a simple S-V-O test on this sentence, it is:

            S - V
            Panto Cina ami - dice iso. ...OR

            Fancifully, with a three-word VERB Clause

            S - V
            Panto Cina - ami dice iso.
            ( all China love say the-same)
            [either] All China loves to say the same.
            [or] All China lovingly says the same.

            I'd award these sentences a "*" suggesting that they did not go.


            >Literally the sentence says:
            >" all china friend say identical"
            * It is a very handy trick to use the glos
            (direct word translation), either explicitly as I
            have done here, or in your head - like looking at
            your cards before working out the value of your
            hand. NB The simple word-translation dictionary
            produced by the Glosa authors was all they could
            afford, but to use it requires imagination.


            >Assuming that 'dice' is the verb, are pan cina ami
            >agreeing with the criticism
            >in the first sentence that Glosa is too much like
            >English, or are they saying
            >that Glosa is like Chinese, which the third sentence
            >seems to say ?
            * Yes, the reported speech is uttered as a
            criticism. The concluding sentence is an
            affirmation of the value of Glosa's syntax.
            I have communicated with both groups,
            English-speakers who say Glosa is simply English
            'relexified', and Chinese-speakers who say they
            recognise in Glosa the same syntax as in their own language.

            Solution of conundrum:

            Well-written Glosa can usually be
            translitterated word for word into English.
            BUT
            English does not translitterate directly into Glosa.

            Explanation:

            Glosa demands the use of correct syntax,
            otherwise its 'grammar' does not work!

            In English with its minimal bag of
            inflections, and through [sloppy] usage, we get
            away with lingustic murder in our syntax.
            The brain recognises utterances in English
            as meaningful by seeing the patterns of usage and converting them into meaning.
            In Glosa we have no body of usage to fall
            back on, and we must observe the niceties of
            proper syntax, otherwise we talk Glosa-Gobbledegook.
            Unfortunately Syntax has not been taught in
            schools; fortunately for me, however, I am old
            enough to have gone to school in Queensland when
            Parsing and Analysis was still being taught in Primary Schools.

            Personal belief:
            By imposing the need for good sentence
            structure on its speakers, Glosa ensures much
            less ambiguity [and deceit] in in the usage of language.

            Glosa Rules:
            1. A word is modified by its preceding word.
            2. Glosa sentences use Subject-Verb-Object structure.
            3. Within phrases, 'head final" structure applies.

            This last rule says that the major word in
            a phrase is the last word of the phrase, and, for
            the other words, the least important starts the
            phrase, while subsequent words leading to the
            major word build up in significance. This
            happens in English with Noun Phrases, e.g.

            the three large fat high-school boys <try re-arranging the order>

            >In the third sentence I assume that the verb is either
            >funktio, or iso, or both.
            >I can, I think, get the meaning, but it would be nice
            >to be sure.
            * All language has some fuzziness Glosa just does
            it differently. But it is annoying all the same.

            >In the above example it is a just bit annoying, but in
            >a different context it could
            >mean that a reader comes away with totally the wrong
            >meaning, and that is the sort
            >of thing that would put people off Glosa.
            * Yip, creatives like it, but the less imaginitive find it a bit off-putting.

            >May I, as an outsider, suggest that perhaps a 'nu'
            >could be slipped into such
            >sentences to split off the subject cluster from the
            >verbal cluster. The easier it
            >is to read, the more people may want to read it.
            * Such an idea has been put forward. ~nu~ has an
            exact funtion: it puts things into the immediate present.
            ~Mi vide an,~ has a different meaning from ~Mi nu vide an.~

            If you have this sort of trouble, you could
            use ^trainer wheels^ at the start to help you recognise the VERB Phrase.

            e.g. Plu tri ju-an /fo hedo voko/ ko plu ridi ju-fe.

            The three boys very happily talked with the laughing girls.

            NB The "^" is such an invention to denote the
            use of non-literal language. It is not supposed
            to be used in Glosa, but this is a rule which I find unnecessarily restricting.

            >I have also noticed that there are older versions of
            >the vocabulary in existence,
            >and it is not clear which one you should be using.
            >This is surely not helpful to anyone wishing to learn
            >Glosa.
            * Quite so, but the matter never really got sorted out.

            >Sorry for the criticism, but it is meant to be
            >contructive. *** I think the secret of
            >Glosa is to write clearly and simply, even if it takes
            >a few more words to do so, and
            >that the writer should take care to ensure that the
            >reader will easily be able to
            >understand what has been written.***
            * I call it reading out loud what you have
            written and seeing if what you hear reminds you of the meant to say.
            If the answer is 'NO', then recast the sentence.

            >Good luck to pan glosa-pe ! I hope you succeed.
            >
            >John Avis
            * Thanks John. In a sane world there is a place
            for Glosa... but we aint got one.

            Robin Gaskell


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Robin Fairbridge Gaskell
            ... Hi sid, This sentence is one I d probably like to see run with ^trainer wheels^. ... Assuming that you started with an English-language sentence in your
            Message 5 of 11 , Oct 9, 2005
              At 12:09 AM 10/5/05, sid pa grafo:
              >as you say, we need to know quickly and easily where the verb phrase starts -
              >the first word could be "pa" , "fu" , "nu", "du", "sio" ( i've been using "
              >du" for the present tense) and those words could be used for nothing else so
              >"now" might be "nu-tem" and so on.
              >u ergo-pe du ergo boni e u an ergo du ergo in u longi tem.
              >much of the difficulty in reading g wouls be reduced this way'
              >in the case of "es", it is rare for it to be used as anything but a verb so
              >"du" could be left out
              >u an ergo es ma boni nu-tem de id pa es
              Hi sid,
              This sentence is one I'd probably like to see run with ^trainer wheels^.

              > u ergo-pe du ergo boni e u an ergo du ergo in u longi tem.

              Assuming that you started with an English-language sentence in
              your head, I'd probably like to see what it was before I could
              comment on this Glosa version.

              I'd agree that ~nu-tem~ would mean 'now', but feel it is
              probably unnecessary if ~nu~ does the job, and sentences were clearly written.
            • John Avis
              ... * So far so good. **A nu fo boni. ... * The inflections, beloved of people who are good at languages, do not suit everybody. Glosa has Syntax-based
              Message 6 of 11 , Oct 9, 2005
                --- Robin Fairbridge Gaskell
                <drought-breaker@...> wrote:


                ---------------------------------
                At 09:09 PM 10/4/05, John Avis pa grafo:
                >Mi ne es glosa-pe, sed glosa interese mi.
                >
                >I write this as an outsider, but I think Glosa could
                >have great potential.
                * So far so good. **A nu fo boni.

                >Depending on its meaning one word can serve as noun,
                >adjective, verb,
                >adverb and even a preposition - less words to learn.
                >Fine !
                * The inflections, beloved of people who are good
                at languages, do not suit everybody. Glosa has
                "Syntax-based Grammar" and thus the sequencing of
                the words gives the language its grammar. Less
                words and less inflections: fine!


                >However, such a language does have its downside. It
                is
                >very easy to write
                >a sentence that is incomprehensible to the reader.
                >English can do that too,
                >even for native speakers !
                * Quite so. A study of 'Good Syntax' seems
                necessary.
                With clearly thought-out syntax, the function of
                each word ought to be clear, and thus, the
                meaning of the whole sentence should, accordingly,
                also be meaningful.

                I have found most Glosa sentences easy to read,
                but
                >some are more difficult to
                >decipher than Classical Latin. I feel this must put
                >people off the language.
                * Usually because the writer has tried to be too
                economical with words, and has over-used the few
                present.

                >To show what I mean I am using an example text from
                >the Glosa website.
                >
                >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                >Glosa - puri komunika
                >(Ronald Clark & Wendy Ashby, © GEO, 1996; from the
                >newspaper "Plu Glosa Nota",
                >ISSN 0265-6892, No. 75, January/February 1996; HTML
                by
                >Paul O. Bartlett, 1996)
                >
                >Ex kron a kron uno civi fu protesta; "Sed Glosa feno
                >kopi un English modela;
                >sura id debi difere?"
                >
                >Panto Cina ami dice iso. Glosa funktio iso Cina
                >lingua.
                >
                * G. Panto Cina ami dice iso.
                glos. (all China friend say as/the_same )
                E. All Chinese friends say the same.

                G. Glosa funktio iso Cina lingua.
                glos. (Glosa function as/the_same China
                language )
                E. Glosa works the same as Chinese.

                >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                >
                >In the above example the first sentence is fine. I
                >could read this without having to
                >consult a vocabulary. The words "fu, feno, debi"
                >indicate the verb cluster and the
                >rest of the sentence falls into place.
                >
                >Not so in the next two shorter sentences. I have no
                >idea where the verbal cluster begins.
                >In the context I think the point is being made that
                >Glosa is similar to Chinese, but
                >not being able to get the exact meaning of the
                >sentences, leaves me in some doubt.
                * Interesting: the idea of a 'VERB cluster' seems to
                have thrown you.
                The ~iso~ is more of a "verb auxilliary"
                than anything. In this sentence structure, the
                ~iso~ is 'helping' the VERB ~dice~, so acts as
                either a Modifier (=adverb) or an Auxillary to
                the verb. The whole VERB Clause (=verb cluster)
                would be ~dice iso~. This sentence uses the
                Intransitive form.

                >In the first sentence, is the verbal cluster, 'dice',
                >'dice iso', or perhaps even
                >'ami dice iso'?
                * Running a simple S-V-O test on this sentence, it is:

                S - V
                Panto Cina ami - dice iso.
                ...OR

                Fancifully, with a three-word VERB Clause

                S - V
                Panto Cina - ami dice iso.
                ( all China love say the-same)
                [either] All China loves to say the same.
                [or] All China lovingly says the same.

                I'd award these sentences a "*" suggesting that they
                did not go.


                >Literally the sentence says:
                >" all china friend say identical"
                * It is a very handy trick to use the glos
                (direct word translation), either explicitly as I
                have done here, or in your head - like looking at
                your cards before working out the value of your
                hand. NB The simple word-translation dictionary
                produced by the Glosa authors was all they could
                afford, but to use it requires imagination.


                >Assuming that 'dice' is the verb, are pan cina ami
                >agreeing with the criticism
                >in the first sentence that Glosa is too much like
                >English, or are they saying
                >that Glosa is like Chinese, which the third sentence
                >seems to say ?
                * Yes, the reported speech is uttered as a
                criticism. The concluding sentence is an
                affirmation of the value of Glosa's syntax.
                I have communicated with both groups,
                English-speakers who say Glosa is simply English
                'relexified', and Chinese-speakers who say they
                recognise in Glosa the same syntax as in their own
                language.

                Solution of conundrum:

                Well-written Glosa can usually be
                translitterated word for word into English.
                BUT
                English does not translitterate directly into
                Glosa.

                Explanation:

                Glosa demands the use of correct syntax,
                otherwise its 'grammar' does not work!

                In English with its minimal bag of
                inflections, and through [sloppy] usage, we get
                away with lingustic murder in our syntax.
                The brain recognises utterances in English
                as meaningful by seeing the patterns of usage and
                converting them into meaning.
                In Glosa we have no body of usage to fall
                back on, and we must observe the niceties of
                proper syntax, otherwise we talk Glosa-Gobbledegook.
                Unfortunately Syntax has not been taught in
                schools; fortunately for me, however, I am old
                enough to have gone to school in Queensland when
                Parsing and Analysis was still being taught in Primary
                Schools.

                Personal belief:
                By imposing the need for good sentence
                structure on its speakers, Glosa ensures much
                less ambiguity [and deceit] in in the usage of
                language.

                Glosa Rules:
                1. A word is modified by its preceding word.
                2. Glosa sentences use Subject-Verb-Object
                structure.
                3. Within phrases, 'head final" structure
                applies.

                This last rule says that the major word in
                a phrase is the last word of the phrase, and, for
                the other words, the least important starts the
                phrase, while subsequent words leading to the
                major word build up in significance. This
                happens in English with Noun Phrases, e.g.

                the three large fat high-school boys <try
                re-arranging the order>

                >In the third sentence I assume that the verb is
                either
                >funktio, or iso, or both.
                >I can, I think, get the meaning, but it would be nice
                >to be sure.
                * All language has some fuzziness Glosa just does
                it differently. But it is annoying all the same.

                >In the above example it is a just bit annoying, but
                in
                >a different context it could
                >mean that a reader comes away with totally the wrong
                >meaning, and that is the sort
                >of thing that would put people off Glosa.
                * Yip, creatives like it, but the less imaginitive
                find it a bit off-putting.

                >May I, as an outsider, suggest that perhaps a 'nu'
                >could be slipped into such
                >sentences to split off the subject cluster from the
                >verbal cluster. The easier it
                >is to read, the more people may want to read it.
                * Such an idea has been put forward. ~nu~ has an
                exact funtion: it puts things into the immediate
                present.
                ~Mi vide an,~ has a different meaning from ~Mi nu
                vide an.~

                If you have this sort of trouble, you could
                use ^trainer wheels^ at the start to help you
                recognise the VERB Phrase.

                e.g. Plu tri ju-an /fo hedo voko/ ko plu ridi
                ju-fe.

                The three boys very happily talked with the
                laughing girls.

                NB The "^" is such an invention to denote the
                use of non-literal language. It is not supposed
                to be used in Glosa, but this is a rule which I find
                unnecessarily restricting.

                >I have also noticed that there are older versions of
                >the vocabulary in existence,
                >and it is not clear which one you should be using.
                >This is surely not helpful to anyone wishing to learn
                >Glosa.
                * Quite so, but the matter never really got sorted
                out.

                >Sorry for the criticism, but it is meant to be
                >contructive. *** I think the secret of
                >Glosa is to write clearly and simply, even if it
                takes
                >a few more words to do so, and
                >that the writer should take care to ensure that the
                >reader will easily be able to
                >understand what has been written.***
                * I call it reading out loud what you have
                written and seeing if what you hear reminds you of the
                meant to say.
                If the answer is 'NO', then recast the sentence.

                >Good luck to pan glosa-pe ! I hope you succeed.
                >
                >John Avis
                * Thanks John. In a sane world there is a place
                for Glosa... but we aint got one.

                Robin Gaskell


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



                SPONSORED LINKS
                Online
                social science degree
                Social science course
                Social science degree
                Social science
                education Bachelor
                of social science
                What is social science


                ---------------------------------
                YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


                Visit your group "glosalist" on the web.

                To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                glosalist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
                Terms of Service.


                ---------------------------------

                Thank you, Robin, for your explanation.


                My first thoughts were that the two sentences meant
                what you said and that panto cina ami were agreeing
                with the criticism in the first sentence.

                It was not the "verb cluster" that threw me - what
                threw me was that I could not believe that panto cina
                ami could not recognise Chinese syntax in Glosa !
                This made me question whether I was translating
                correctly.

                I suppose the answer is that while Glosa is similar to
                Chinese and English, it not Chinese nor English.

                I do not consider myself a glosa-pe as I have made no
                attempt to learn Glosa, but with a rough idea of its
                syntax I have been reading it and, as I said, most of
                the time I can read it easily.

                You have left me wondering whether I should make some
                serious effort to learn it !

                Yours,
                John Avis




                ___________________________________________________________
                To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
              • Robin Fairbridge Gaskell
                ... Much omitted. Saluta holo-pe, e speciali John, ... * A perfect example of the imperfectness of language for communication. Even from this, I am not sure
                Message 7 of 11 , Oct 11, 2005
                  At 11:23 PM 10/9/05, John Avis pa grafo:

                  >--- Robin Fairbridge Gaskell wrote:
                  >---------------------------------
                  >At 09:09 PM 10/4/05, John Avis pa grafo:
                  > >Mi ne es glosa-pe, sed glosa interese mi.
                  > >
                  > >I write this as an outsider, but I think Glosa could
                  > >have great potential.
                  >* So far so good. **A nu fo boni.
                  >
                  >----------------------------------
                  Much omitted.

                  Saluta holo-pe, e speciali John,
                  >
                  >---------------------------------
                  >
                  >Thank you, Robin, for your explanation.
                  >
                  >
                  >My first thoughts were that the two sentences meant
                  >what you said and that panto cina ami were agreeing
                  >with the criticism in the first sentence.
                  >
                  >It was not the "verb cluster" that threw me - what
                  >threw me was that I could not believe that panto cina
                  >ami could not recognise Chinese syntax in Glosa !
                  >This made me question whether I was translating
                  >correctly.
                  * A perfect example of the imperfectness of language for communication.

                  Even from this, I am not sure if you are revising your first
                  interpretation of
                  these two Glosa sentences and possibly misreading the second to
                  understand that Chinese people had trouble accepting that a weird languge
                  like Glosa could be so close to their Chinese language in its syntax, or
                  that you thought the sentence implied an opposite meaning, i.e. that
                  Chinese people could not perceive that the syntaxes of Chinese language
                  and Glosa were almost parallel.
                  What should have been said - and not just implied - in the original Glosa
                  statement, is that through lengthy processes of linguistic evolution, both
                  Chinese and English have dropped out most of their
                  inflections. Thus, they have
                  shown a form of convergent evolution in that they have both come to rely
                  on syntax for the sense of their sentences ... very notably, from East
                  and West, the resulting syntax - regardless of the forms of the two
                  languages - is very similar.
                  Pushing the argument to an unprovable level, we might conclude that
                  syntax is really the language element that is hard-wired into our brains, and
                  that the speakers of both of these languages have 'intuitively'
                  discovered this
                  primacy of syntax.

                  >I suppose the answer is that while Glosa is similar to
                  >Chinese and English, it not Chinese nor English.
                  * This is something that some people find hard to accept. In fact, Glosa
                  is a language in its own right, and there are expressions that can be more
                  elegant in Glosa than they would be in English. Simply because the authors
                  of Glosa are English speakers, some critics see the similarities between
                  the two languages as a function of author First Language.
                  On standing back, I tend to see the fact that Ron and Wendy spoke a
                  language, that had become streamlined through the loss of inflections, as a
                  catalyst for the synthesis of Glosa: pushing language to the full extent of
                  this dimension - where there was no other grammar than syntax.

                  >I do not consider myself a glosa-pe as I have made no
                  >attempt to learn Glosa, but with a rough idea of its
                  >syntax I have been reading it and, as I said, most of
                  >the time I can read it easily.
                  * John you can be described as a casual reader of Glosa. How many other
                  languages can be picked up, without tuition, by the casual reader?
                  While Ron Clark went out of his way to avoid giving a grammatical
                  prescription for Glosa, the Linguists demand it! Ron wanted to avoid the
                  confusions of a pedantically imposed book of grammatical rules. History
                  might show this to have been a mistake. I did try subsequently, to explain
                  the grammar of Glosa, and this is on the web somewhere.
                  However, what Ron should definitely have done was to research the rules
                  of syntax; and, most people do not recognise that syntax does have rules.
                  So, good syntax - good word order - is what gives English its rhythm,
                  flow and meaning. Glosa is the same, only moreso. While Chinese people
                  sometimes do not know what to do with the "-ing" inflection, and so add it
                  to almost everything, with Glosa, this conundrum is removed. But, for people
                  whose first languages rely heavily on inflection, asking them to use Glosa can
                  be akin to removing the crutch from a cripple.
                  All in all, Glosa looks like being the Planned Language most likely to be
                  readily readable by the largest proportion of the human population. Writing
                  Glosa, on the other hand takes a little skill, and also some precision of mind.

                  >You have left me wondering whether I should make some
                  >serious effort to learn it !
                  * Know that it exists, acknowledge that it is at the other end of
                  the language
                  spectrum to languages which are very highly inflected; then, consider
                  not translating, but 'retelling' a well-known story in Glosa.
                  When you catch yourself thinking in Glosa, rather than thinking
                  in English,
                  and and then translating it, you will know you are using Glosa effectively.
                  When I use two language writing - Engilsh and Glosa - I always write the
                  Glosa first: for me, it is fatal to write the English first, then try to find
                  translations into Glosa for my vernacular English.
                  You could be in for a pleasant shock. I was when I explored "Cinderella"
                  in Glosa: my imagination took off, resulting in a much more intriguing, and
                  believable, ~Cinerala~.

                  Habe u boni di.

                  Robin Gaskell
                • Vilhelmo Valtero
                  Salata, Robin! On 10/11/05, Robin Fairbridge Gaskell ... http://kafejo.com/rgaskell/syntax.htm - Bill [Non-text portions of
                  Message 8 of 11 , Oct 12, 2005
                    Salata, Robin!
                    On 10/11/05, Robin Fairbridge Gaskell <drought-breaker@...>
                    wrote:
                    >
                    > While Ron Clark went out of his way to avoid giving a grammatical
                    > prescription for Glosa, the Linguists demand it! Ron wanted to avoid the
                    > confusions of a pedantically imposed book of grammatical rules. History
                    > might show this to have been a mistake. I did try subsequently, to explain
                    > the grammar of Glosa, and this is on the web somewhere.

                    http://kafejo.com/rgaskell/syntax.htm
                    - Bill


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Nick N. Mikhailenko
                    ... * Thanks John. In a sane world there is a place for Glosa... but we aint got one. Robin Gaskell Dear Robin G.! Please, write the history of Glosa-movement
                    Message 9 of 11 , Oct 12, 2005
                      >Good luck to pan glosa-pe ! I hope you succeed.
                      >
                      >John Avis

                      * Thanks John. In a sane world there is a place
                      for Glosa... but we aint got one.

                      Robin Gaskell

                      Dear Robin G.!

                      Please, write the history of Glosa-movement in simple English (unidiomatic)
                      while you are alive
                      Tell about men and women, as persons, in this affair. I will use your story
                      in my site, where
                      russian readers will have materials on Volapuk, Esperanto, Ido, Occidental,
                      Novial, Interingua,
                      Intal, Glosa, Slovio.

                      How can you don't know Esperanto? It's very strange!

                      For consideration:
                      Mi fobo
                      1) mi habe fobo
                      2) fobo de mi

                      I prefer: mi -> yo, me, mi
                      yo fobo != mi fobo

                      Siplicity in prescription not always = opportunaty in usage

                      The main interes of Glosa is in dictionary. Dead roots is more usefull than
                      modern because of science, tekhnic, arts. Zamenhof would have a shock. Why
                      not make Liga = Glosa + Esperanto ?

                      Liga simpla = Glosa
                      Liga pedanta = Esperanto

                      Works of glosa-pe will be part of future universal human language. It will
                      be so! After twenty years.
                    • Zhenyu
                      Plu-ci grafo es forti GRANDI INTER-DICE pro LOGI-PE e NO-LOGI-PE de u LOGIKA de GLOSA! Ex John plu proto lexi, na pote detekti qo-ka Glosa ne pa es ge-acepta
                      Message 10 of 11 , Apr 13, 2010
                        Plu-ci grafo es forti GRANDI INTER-DICE pro LOGI-PE e NO-LOGI-PE de u LOGIKA de GLOSA!

                        Ex John plu proto lexi, na pote detekti qo-ka Glosa ne pa es ge-acepta ex plu-la pe qi pa habitu un inflexi grama. Po-co, ex Robin un explika, na detekti qo-ka es u boni e korekti mode de ski de u logika de Glosa. Mu inter-dice es forti profunda e detaila;de u klavi-logika de Glosa!

                        Mi pa retro-vide plura pa-grafo de ci. Fo interese, mi pote detekti ma info de profunda-libela diskusi de Glosa e plu hetero lingua.

                        Glosa es u holo-neo koncepti lingua! Na ne pote skope id per na paleo vista-punktu de inflexi lingua-lega(gramatika) homo plu Euro-lingua more habe. U munda ne pote ne habe Glosa qi es reali lingua ge-designa akorda un auto de menta e koncepti!

                        Pro Mondlango, id es u ple gramatika de habe absoluti sati ra pro singu lexi-morfo iso "-o(-os),-a,-i(-an,-in,-on,-ant-,-int-,-ont-,-at-,-it-,-ot-,-uz,-ez),-e,ect." u traditio Euro-lingua koncepti.

                        Saluta!
                        Li Zhenyu




                        --- In glosalist@yahoogroups.com, Robin Fairbridge Gaskell <drought-breaker@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > At 11:23 PM 10/9/05, John Avis pa grafo:
                        >
                        > >--- Robin Fairbridge Gaskell wrote:
                        > >---------------------------------
                        > >At 09:09 PM 10/4/05, John Avis pa grafo:
                        > > >Mi ne es glosa-pe, sed glosa interese mi.
                        > > >
                        > > >I write this as an outsider, but I think Glosa could
                        > > >have great potential.
                        > >* So far so good. **A nu fo boni.
                        > >
                        > >----------------------------------
                        > Much omitted.
                        >
                        > Saluta holo-pe, e speciali John,
                        > >
                        > >---------------------------------
                        > >
                        > >Thank you, Robin, for your explanation.
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >My first thoughts were that the two sentences meant
                        > >what you said and that panto cina ami were agreeing
                        > >with the criticism in the first sentence.
                        > >
                        > >It was not the "verb cluster" that threw me - what
                        > >threw me was that I could not believe that panto cina
                        > >ami could not recognise Chinese syntax in Glosa !
                        > >This made me question whether I was translating
                        > >correctly.
                        > * A perfect example of the imperfectness of language for communication.
                        >
                        > Even from this, I am not sure if you are revising your first
                        > interpretation of
                        > these two Glosa sentences and possibly misreading the second to
                        > understand that Chinese people had trouble accepting that a weird languge
                        > like Glosa could be so close to their Chinese language in its syntax, or
                        > that you thought the sentence implied an opposite meaning, i.e. that
                        > Chinese people could not perceive that the syntaxes of Chinese language
                        > and Glosa were almost parallel.
                        > What should have been said - and not just implied - in the original Glosa
                        > statement, is that through lengthy processes of linguistic evolution, both
                        > Chinese and English have dropped out most of their
                        > inflections. Thus, they have
                        > shown a form of convergent evolution in that they have both come to rely
                        > on syntax for the sense of their sentences ... very notably, from East
                        > and West, the resulting syntax - regardless of the forms of the two
                        > languages - is very similar.
                        > Pushing the argument to an unprovable level, we might conclude that
                        > syntax is really the language element that is hard-wired into our brains, and
                        > that the speakers of both of these languages have 'intuitively'
                        > discovered this
                        > primacy of syntax.
                        >
                        > >I suppose the answer is that while Glosa is similar to
                        > >Chinese and English, it not Chinese nor English.
                        > * This is something that some people find hard to accept. In fact, Glosa
                        > is a language in its own right, and there are expressions that can be more
                        > elegant in Glosa than they would be in English. Simply because the authors
                        > of Glosa are English speakers, some critics see the similarities between
                        > the two languages as a function of author First Language.
                        > On standing back, I tend to see the fact that Ron and Wendy spoke a
                        > language, that had become streamlined through the loss of inflections, as a
                        > catalyst for the synthesis of Glosa: pushing language to the full extent of
                        > this dimension - where there was no other grammar than syntax.
                        >
                        > >I do not consider myself a glosa-pe as I have made no
                        > >attempt to learn Glosa, but with a rough idea of its
                        > >syntax I have been reading it and, as I said, most of
                        > >the time I can read it easily.
                        > * John you can be described as a casual reader of Glosa. How many other
                        > languages can be picked up, without tuition, by the casual reader?
                        > While Ron Clark went out of his way to avoid giving a grammatical
                        > prescription for Glosa, the Linguists demand it! Ron wanted to avoid the
                        > confusions of a pedantically imposed book of grammatical rules. History
                        > might show this to have been a mistake. I did try subsequently, to explain
                        > the grammar of Glosa, and this is on the web somewhere.
                        > However, what Ron should definitely have done was to research the rules
                        > of syntax; and, most people do not recognise that syntax does have rules.
                        > So, good syntax - good word order - is what gives English its rhythm,
                        > flow and meaning. Glosa is the same, only moreso. While Chinese people
                        > sometimes do not know what to do with the "-ing" inflection, and so add it
                        > to almost everything, with Glosa, this conundrum is removed. But, for people
                        > whose first languages rely heavily on inflection, asking them to use Glosa can
                        > be akin to removing the crutch from a cripple.
                        > All in all, Glosa looks like being the Planned Language most likely to be
                        > readily readable by the largest proportion of the human population. Writing
                        > Glosa, on the other hand takes a little skill, and also some precision of mind.
                        >
                        > >You have left me wondering whether I should make some
                        > >serious effort to learn it !
                        > * Know that it exists, acknowledge that it is at the other end of
                        > the language
                        > spectrum to languages which are very highly inflected; then, consider
                        > not translating, but 'retelling' a well-known story in Glosa.
                        > When you catch yourself thinking in Glosa, rather than thinking
                        > in English,
                        > and and then translating it, you will know you are using Glosa effectively.
                        > When I use two language writing - Engilsh and Glosa - I always write the
                        > Glosa first: for me, it is fatal to write the English first, then try to find
                        > translations into Glosa for my vernacular English.
                        > You could be in for a pleasant shock. I was when I explored "Cinderella"
                        > in Glosa: my imagination took off, resulting in a much more intriguing, and
                        > believable, ~Cinerala~.
                        >
                        > Habe u boni di.
                        >
                        > Robin Gaskell
                        >
                      • Zhenyu
                        inflexi grama a pre-nu posta es ero, sed es inflexi gramatika
                        Message 11 of 11 , Apr 13, 2010
                          "inflexi grama" a pre-nu posta es ero, sed es "inflexi gramatika"

                          --- In glosalist@yahoogroups.com, "Zhenyu" <lizhenyu_god@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Plu-ci grafo es forti GRANDI INTER-DICE pro LOGI-PE e NO-LOGI-PE de u LOGIKA de GLOSA!
                          >
                          > Ex John plu proto lexi, na pote detekti qo-ka Glosa ne pa es ge-acepta ex plu-la pe qi pa habitu un inflexi gramatika. Po-co, ex Robin un explika, na detekti qo-ka es u boni e korekti mode de ski de u logika de Glosa. Mu inter-dice es forti profunda e detaila;de u klavi-logika de Glosa!
                          >
                          > Mi pa retro-vide plura pa-grafo de ci. Fo interese, mi pote detekti ma info de profunda-libela diskusi de Glosa e plu hetero lingua.
                          >
                          > Glosa es u holo-neo koncepti lingua! Na ne pote skope id per na paleo vista-punktu de inflexi lingua-lega(gramatika) homo plu Euro-lingua more habe. U munda ne pote ne habe Glosa qi es reali lingua ge-designa akorda un auto de menta e koncepti!
                          >
                          > Pro Mondlango, id es u ple gramatika de habe absoluti sati ra pro singu lexi-morfo iso "-o(-os),-a,-i(-an,-in,-on,-ant-,-int-,-ont-,-at-,-it-,-ot-,-uz,-ez),-e,ect." u traditio Euro-lingua koncepti.
                          >
                          > Saluta!
                          > Li Zhenyu
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > --- In glosalist@yahoogroups.com, Robin Fairbridge Gaskell <drought-breaker@> wrote:
                          > >
                          > > At 11:23 PM 10/9/05, John Avis pa grafo:
                          > >
                          > > >--- Robin Fairbridge Gaskell wrote:
                          > > >---------------------------------
                          > > >At 09:09 PM 10/4/05, John Avis pa grafo:
                          > > > >Mi ne es glosa-pe, sed glosa interese mi.
                          > > > >
                          > > > >I write this as an outsider, but I think Glosa could
                          > > > >have great potential.
                          > > >* So far so good. **A nu fo boni.
                          > > >
                          > > >----------------------------------
                          > > Much omitted.
                          > >
                          > > Saluta holo-pe, e speciali John,
                          > > >
                          > > >---------------------------------
                          > > >
                          > > >Thank you, Robin, for your explanation.
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >My first thoughts were that the two sentences meant
                          > > >what you said and that panto cina ami were agreeing
                          > > >with the criticism in the first sentence.
                          > > >
                          > > >It was not the "verb cluster" that threw me - what
                          > > >threw me was that I could not believe that panto cina
                          > > >ami could not recognise Chinese syntax in Glosa !
                          > > >This made me question whether I was translating
                          > > >correctly.
                          > > * A perfect example of the imperfectness of language for communication.
                          > >
                          > > Even from this, I am not sure if you are revising your first
                          > > interpretation of
                          > > these two Glosa sentences and possibly misreading the second to
                          > > understand that Chinese people had trouble accepting that a weird languge
                          > > like Glosa could be so close to their Chinese language in its syntax, or
                          > > that you thought the sentence implied an opposite meaning, i.e. that
                          > > Chinese people could not perceive that the syntaxes of Chinese language
                          > > and Glosa were almost parallel.
                          > > What should have been said - and not just implied - in the original Glosa
                          > > statement, is that through lengthy processes of linguistic evolution, both
                          > > Chinese and English have dropped out most of their
                          > > inflections. Thus, they have
                          > > shown a form of convergent evolution in that they have both come to rely
                          > > on syntax for the sense of their sentences ... very notably, from East
                          > > and West, the resulting syntax - regardless of the forms of the two
                          > > languages - is very similar.
                          > > Pushing the argument to an unprovable level, we might conclude that
                          > > syntax is really the language element that is hard-wired into our brains, and
                          > > that the speakers of both of these languages have 'intuitively'
                          > > discovered this
                          > > primacy of syntax.
                          > >
                          > > >I suppose the answer is that while Glosa is similar to
                          > > >Chinese and English, it not Chinese nor English.
                          > > * This is something that some people find hard to accept. In fact, Glosa
                          > > is a language in its own right, and there are expressions that can be more
                          > > elegant in Glosa than they would be in English. Simply because the authors
                          > > of Glosa are English speakers, some critics see the similarities between
                          > > the two languages as a function of author First Language.
                          > > On standing back, I tend to see the fact that Ron and Wendy spoke a
                          > > language, that had become streamlined through the loss of inflections, as a
                          > > catalyst for the synthesis of Glosa: pushing language to the full extent of
                          > > this dimension - where there was no other grammar than syntax.
                          > >
                          > > >I do not consider myself a glosa-pe as I have made no
                          > > >attempt to learn Glosa, but with a rough idea of its
                          > > >syntax I have been reading it and, as I said, most of
                          > > >the time I can read it easily.
                          > > * John you can be described as a casual reader of Glosa. How many other
                          > > languages can be picked up, without tuition, by the casual reader?
                          > > While Ron Clark went out of his way to avoid giving a grammatical
                          > > prescription for Glosa, the Linguists demand it! Ron wanted to avoid the
                          > > confusions of a pedantically imposed book of grammatical rules. History
                          > > might show this to have been a mistake. I did try subsequently, to explain
                          > > the grammar of Glosa, and this is on the web somewhere.
                          > > However, what Ron should definitely have done was to research the rules
                          > > of syntax; and, most people do not recognise that syntax does have rules.
                          > > So, good syntax - good word order - is what gives English its rhythm,
                          > > flow and meaning. Glosa is the same, only moreso. While Chinese people
                          > > sometimes do not know what to do with the "-ing" inflection, and so add it
                          > > to almost everything, with Glosa, this conundrum is removed. But, for people
                          > > whose first languages rely heavily on inflection, asking them to use Glosa can
                          > > be akin to removing the crutch from a cripple.
                          > > All in all, Glosa looks like being the Planned Language most likely to be
                          > > readily readable by the largest proportion of the human population. Writing
                          > > Glosa, on the other hand takes a little skill, and also some precision of mind.
                          > >
                          > > >You have left me wondering whether I should make some
                          > > >serious effort to learn it !
                          > > * Know that it exists, acknowledge that it is at the other end of
                          > > the language
                          > > spectrum to languages which are very highly inflected; then, consider
                          > > not translating, but 'retelling' a well-known story in Glosa.
                          > > When you catch yourself thinking in Glosa, rather than thinking
                          > > in English,
                          > > and and then translating it, you will know you are using Glosa effectively.
                          > > When I use two language writing - Engilsh and Glosa - I always write the
                          > > Glosa first: for me, it is fatal to write the English first, then try to find
                          > > translations into Glosa for my vernacular English.
                          > > You could be in for a pleasant shock. I was when I explored "Cinderella"
                          > > in Glosa: my imagination took off, resulting in a much more intriguing, and
                          > > believable, ~Cinerala~.
                          > >
                          > > Habe u boni di.
                          > >
                          > > Robin Gaskell
                          > >
                          >
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.