Print

Print


At 12:06 PM 11/12/98 -0500, Paul Bartlett wrote:
>On Thu, 12 Nov 1998, Robin Gaskell wrote (excerpted):
>
>>     They control the Glosa contacts list.
>
>    Presumably meaning only those with whom they have contact, and not
>just anyone who has interest in Glosa,  [  .................  ]
>>     They survive on sales of hardcopy dictionaries,  [  ...........  ]
>
>    I have mentioned before, although I do not recall readily in what
>fora, that if the Glosa authors try to treat Glosa like a cash cow,
>then the language is in for hard times.  [  ..........  ]
*   More like the cow belonging to Jack, of Beanstalk fame.
 
>     Most potential users do not know and probably do not care
>about such matters.  They only care about the learnability (including
>availability of didactic materials) and usability of the language.  Sad
>but true, we live in a harsh world in this regard.
*   Just one of those things, I guess.  Glosa is liable to die because its
creators chose to work on the language full-time, without having first
assured their financial futures.
 
>>     When, and I hope it is soon, a median/optimal Glosa dictionary is
>> derived by Glosalist members, it will bear the Glosa Education Org.
>> copyright, but will be released onto the Internet as resulting from the
>> work of Glosalist subscribers.
>
>    Why need it have their copyright at all?
*   This seems the crux: we would like to set up a dictionary with regular
spelling and vocabulary that would provide a standard for world use, at
least on the Net.
    So, the idea of some authority behind the list is needed: hence the
official (Richmond, UK) copyright.  The words in a consistent Glosa 6000+
dictionary are the same words as in the printed dictionaries, but with
standardised spelling, and complete listings in both Glosa->English and
English->Glosa sections .. PLUS an addition of about ten words not in the
official dictionaries, and some phrasal Glosa equivalents of complex
English words.
 
>   (Certainly a cleaned
>up "optimal" dictionary in -numerous- natlangs -- and not just
>English! -- is desirable.)
>
*   This is true.  It is quite silly to broadcast the appeal for an
international language only in English.  But English is my only national
language: we must ask the Glosa authors and other Glosa-pe to write blurb
about Glosa in languages other than English.
 
>    But will the hardcopy dictionaries that might be sold be the
>"non-cleaned-up" variety from existing stock?  In that case, little or
>nothing is gained by "cleaning up" the dictionaries.  Again, sad but
>true.
>
*   While Glosa is one language - albeit with different vintages of
dictionaries containing different wordlists and variations in spelling -
the Glosa users community is NOT united.  There are at least three
different communities, based on the mode of communication: those on the Net
comprise a 'world community'; a second group, the non-Netted affluents in
Europe and other developed countries, write letters to one another; and
Third Worlders, who write a few letters to a limited number of affluents,
make up the third group.
    These groups tend to use different versions of the Glosa lexicon.
Though they are all using the same language, they might have an electronic
version of the 6000-word list (already with consistent spelling); they
might be using the printed "Glosa 6000" with all its inconsistencies; or
they could be ^travelling economy class^ and using one of the "Glosa 1000"
versions.
    If, with some help from Glosalist subscribers, I can produce a
standardised dictionary with an estimated 2500 words, then this can be fed
into the official Glosa publication list, and will, eventually, see a
standardisation of all wordlists.
 
>    Do the "best interests" of Ron Clark and Wendy Ashby necessarily
>coincide with the "best interests" of Glosa?  We live in a harsh world.
>
*   Harsh though it may be, "uncharitable" would be the epithet of the
moment.  In all of auxlangland, but acutely so in the Glosa realm, there is
a shortage of active person-power.  Until there evolves an effective second
tier to to Glosa dissemination, what is good for Ron and Wendy is good for
Glosa.
    Post-war reconstructionism got Hogben; economic rationalism
(neo-libertarianism) seems to be getting the Glosa team.  A combination of
the death of altruism, and the endemic depression that besets the
information-overloaded Netizens, conspires to de-activate would-be early
adopters of Language Reform projects
 
>>     BTW, until recently, the  [log in to unmask]  call-sign has
>> been open to inward e-mail.
>  [  ...............................  ]
>    I don't know the situation with Internet access in Great Britain.
>Perhaps somone like James Chandler could enlighten us (apart from
>having usable hardware, of course).
>
*   I suspect that many of us do not realise how up-market the whole
Internet experience is.  When the computer, with which a couple of
economically marginal researchers access the Net, fails, it is a major
disaster, and not just a minor financial hic-cup.  In the good old days of
the XT, the Internet seemed a good idea, but, now, with the need for a good
GUI and sophisticated software, just to keep up with the Net, the average
world communicator is running hard to stay connected.
 
   What Paul says about the Glosa authors keeping a stranglehold on the
language is partly true, but so also is the harsh reality of the user-pay
rabid capitalist phase the world is moving into.  A more charitable regime
in the world, and the possibilities of Clark and Ashby snagging a research
grant, would see considerable loostening up of the Glosa organisation.
 
Saluta
 Robin