Je 07.45 ptm 2006.06.24, Rex MAY skribis

>Don, I've often heard about Glosa being relexified English, and I 
>don't doubt it, but
>could you give some details about just what that means in this 
>case.  I fear falling
>into the same trap with Ceqli.

As I understood it, much of the stuff that came out of England in 
Glosa was basically English syntax and grammar with Glosa vocabulary 
and grammatical morphology replacing the English. This is not unusual 
in an IAL; to a great extent, Esperanto as spoken by many Americans 
is relexified English, and the structure of the language permits this 
without problems. But, of course, not all Esperanto is; and the 
impression I got from what I heard was that all Glosa was. This does 
not, of course, mean that it has to be, only that it was primarily 
used that way.

This may not be too surprising. Glosa's precursor, Interglossa, was 
supposed to be "a Greek (Hellenic) vocabulary and a Chinese syntax". 
But it's not clear to me that Lancelot Hogben realized that there 
were any differences between English and Chinese syntax; and I don't 
think that his successors did much with the language's syntax, 
preferring to concentrate on, to some degree, Latinizing the vocabulary.

 From what I've seen of Ceqli (in this list), you are a ways away 
from falling into the same trap. I would not lose a lot of sleep over 
it -- just keep an eye open from time to time when you are writing 
something in Ceqli. Oh, and you might, on occasion, make a specific 
effort to deviate from English word-order and such.

(Incidentally, I ran across a quote from Hogben, and more 
specifically from his book on Interglossa, the other night in an old 
essay by George Orwell. Bad news -- the quote was one of five 
illustrations of really, really bad [in Orwell's opinion] use of the 
English language.)

Opinions (in English):
Esperanto (in English):
Literaturo (Esperante):