Chris Burd wrote:
> (3) The utility of those final vowels. Unlike Charles, I'm not huge fan of
> POS marking, which seems to me to be antithetical to the idea of a language
> like Glosa, as I understand it. If your word order is relatively fixed,
> then POS labels on every word are massively redundant.
Glosa has thrown off Hogben's (not my) terminal POS vowels.
So far, they aren't used for anything, except in a few words.
> Using them to differentiate homophones seems a reasonable idea.
Sure, you could do it. Example: favi=honeycomb, favo=favor.
> Charles's idea that final vowels would be levelled in practice may seem
> obvious to an English speaker, but not to an Italian or a Chinese.
They won't be if they start getting used for something,
such as fitting more CVCV words into the vocabulary.
Assuming they are, then it will be necessary to use
the small particles as phrase boundary markers.
Some others have expressed distaste for that method.
But one can't use words as verbs, nouns, and modifiers
without some way to indicate what's what.
If "direct derivation" in Esperanto is considered
faulty (by Couturat) then the "zero derivation"
of Glosa should roll him over a few times ...